₦airaland Forum

PA1982:
hey, Enigma!
One of the strangest things I've come accross in this on-line searching is the strange reluctance of the article writers to draw a logical conclusion from their findings.
I get the impression the authors' objective is to lull the readership into acceptance in spite of the evidence.
Here's yet another example:
http://newapologia.com/who-wrote-2-peter/
. . . .

I hope that, at the least, you will be more cautious from now on in making those rather sweeping statements which I feel belittle you and paint you in a less clever light than I actually think you are to be honest.

Image123:
Joagbaje is the obvious ignorant one here. i'm not endorsing (if that's even my place) or fully supporting zac, but i'm certain zac poonen has more knowledge than the sum total of knowledge in CE.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cfcr/Zac_Poonen

Zac Poonen

Zac Poonen (born November 5, 1939), is a Bible teacher and Christian author, from India. He is best-known for his teaching emphasis on holiness and discipleship, planting churches mostly in India, like Christian Fellowship Church, his main home church, but also churches in other parts of the world. He is also well known for using the Internet prolifically, writing numerous Christian books, recording thousands of audio sermons and video sermons, all available on the Internet for free. He also frequently conducts webcam Christian meetings with small home churches[1], and is a frequent Twitter user[2]. Poonen is perhaps best known for a comprehensive recording, THROUGH THE BIBLE, which is a 70 hour video bible study. This study gives a comprehensive overview of all 66 books of the Bible. He has also conducted similar extensive verse-by-verse studies of the entire New Testament and select books from the Old Testament. Poonen has authored 26 books on the deeper Christian life. Among them his most widely-read book is a book titled – Beauty For Ashes. 1.5 million copies of these 26 books are in circulation in various languages- in many of India’s languages as well as in Spanish, Norwegian, Dutch, Romanian, German, Portuguese, Turkish, Eritrean, etc., Tyndale House Publishers (one of the foremost Christian publishers in USA) has published his book WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE GOD? Kingsway Publications (one of the foremost Christian publishers in UK) published three of his books: BEAUTY FOR ASHES, RADIATING HIS GLORY,ONE BODY IN CHRIST. All of Zac Poonen’s books and video and audio sermons are available at www.cfcindia.com - free of charge.

(Edit) And

Zac Poonen was born in India on November 5, 1939. In 1955, he joined India’s National Defense Academy. He passed out as first among the Naval cadets in 1957. In 1958, he was adjudged Best All Round Cadet on the Cadet’s training Ship INS KISTNA. In May 1964, he put in his resignation-papers from the Indian Navy to engage in full time Christian ministry, but was permitted to leave only in May 1966. In between, in 1965, during the Indo-Pakistan war, he was Executive officer of a minesweeper in the Indian fleet. A sudden, unexpected ceasefire saved him from the real possibility of death in the Arabian Sea. He was then convinced that his life had been saved by God with an important purpose. He earned the Raksha Medal and the Samar Seva Star for his service in that war. . . . . .

PA1982:
Not so, enigma.
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Would you like more?
It's hardly a sweeping or uninformed statement.

PA1982

I have now managed to read the article in your first link (I originally thought it was another site). Do you realise that the article actually disagrees with you and confirms what I said? Do you realise that the article actually concludes that the "critics"' argument that the apostle Peter did not write that epistle is not proved? Do you realise that the article actually concludes in favour of the liklelihood of Petrine authorship? The article even cites one of the better genuine scholars in the field - i.e. Bauckham! 

OLAADEGBU:
As long as her links and sources are anti Biblical she would swallow them hook line and 'stinker' as nothing but the whole truth.

An indication of her misinformation in this particular instance is a failure to understand or appreciate the difference between a pseudepigraph and a "forgery" ----- and that is even assuming for argument purposes only that the epistle is not rightly associated with the apostle Peter.

^^^  I thought you might bring those up -- especially the second one, so nothing new.

I will however post a short and easy read just for a little balance. http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm

On another day and another thread, the discussion of authorship could be pursued further; for now, I'll minimise the diversion of this thread. 

Edit: PS I noticed you didn't say your statement was not misinformed because even despite your links --- it was.

PA1982:
. . .

In any case, it's well accepted 2 Peter is a forgery.
I've pointed this out before.
2 Peter has no place in adiscussion about dinosaurs.

I'm afraid you tend to make some rather sweeping and misinformed (maybe even uninformed) statements; even the scholars and academics that you want to rely on for this statement will not put it in those terms! You really could and should do better.

For the sake of people that may be misled by these false teachers, below is one explanation of that Mark 6:5 passage (bear in mind it is only one explanation and there are other suggestions).

From http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/mark-6-5.html

Bible Study ToolsOur LibraryCommentariesJohn Gill's Exposition of the BibleMarkMark 6Mark 6:5


Mark 6:5

And he could there do no mighty work

Or miracle; not that Christ had no power in himself to work miracles, though their unbelief and contempt of him were very great; but it was not fit and proper that he should do any there, since such were their prejudices against him: it is an usual way of speaking with the Hebrews, when either it is not "fit" and proper that a thing should be done, or they "will" not do it, to say it cannot be done; see ( Genesis 19:22 ) ( 37:4 ) ; and even it is said of God himself, "So that the Lord could no longer bear, because of your evil doings", ( Jeremiah 44:22 ) . Not but that he could if he would, but he would not; nor was it fit and proper that he should; the same is the sense here: besides, in ( Matthew 13:58 ) it is said, "he did not many mighty works there"; and so the Arabic version here, "and he did not many mighty works there"; he did not think it proper to do any of any great consequence, nor did he. Wherefore the Jew has no reason to object this to the divinity of Christ, as if there was a want of power in him. Christ is omnipotent, and he has given proof of his almighty power, by the miracles which he has wrought; and [b]though he wrought no mighty work "there", yet he wrought many elsewhere, which sufficiently attest the truth of his proper deity: the emphasis lies upon the word there; though he did not work any considerable miracle in that place, he did in others; which shows, that it was not a defect of power in him, that was the reason of it, but something else; and Matthew gives the reason of it, and says, it was "because of their unbelief": not that their unbelief was an over match for his power; he could have removed that, if he had thought fit, but he did not do it; he, who is the author and finisher of faith, could have took away their unbelief, as the man that brought his dumb child to Christ, concluded he could; and therefore said to him, "Lord, help my unbelief", ( Mark 9:24 ) . Christ sometimes required of the persons he was about to heal, faith in him, that he could heal them; and so did his apostles, ( Matthew 9:28 ) ( Acts 14:9 ) . Not that faith contributed any thing to the cure, but it was the way and means in which Christ was pleased to communicate his healing virtue: besides, when persons applied to him for healing, and expressed their faith in him, it gave him an opportunity of working a miracle for that purpose; but now these people did not so much as ask such a favour of him, and so gave him no occasion of doing any mighty work; for which reason it may be said, he could not, no opportunity offering: and moreover, seeing they disbelieved him, and rejected him as the Messiah, they were unworthy of having any wrought among them; and it was but just and right, to do none: nay, it was rather an instance of kindness not to do any among them; since had he, and they had remained impenitent and unbelieving, as he knew they would, these would have been aggravations of their condemnation.
[/b]
Save that he laid his hands upon a sick folk, and healed them.
There were some few sick people that had faith in him, and came to him, beseeching him to heal them; and accordingly he did lay his hands on them, and cured them, which was a way he sometimes used: and these cures he wrought, to show his power, what he could do, and what benefits they might have enjoyed by him, and to leave them inexcusable.

^^^ Bros, honestly na de thing wey first come my mind! God forgive!

^^^ Sorry please forgive me and it is a good thing (if indeed) you are not Yoruba. However I first misread your username for a made up Yoruba name i.e. Mugulabi! 

(The meaning, while not that bad, is not altogether nice!)

When we talk e go be like say pesin just hate this Oyakhilome guy. But the guy just wouldn't stop saying nonsense and adding to the scripture in the process! See what he now says of Jesus --- clearly going beyond what scriptire says in the first place and in the second place failing to appreciate the issues concerning the rendering "couldn't"!

Joagbaje:
. . .
There’re those who out of their ignorance of the Scriptures wonder how come God’s ministers are unable to just heal every sick person in the world. “If Jesus were here, He would heal everybody”; they’d say. Such statements are from those who are spiritually unlearned. When Jesus walked the earth, He “didn’t heal everybody.” As a matter of fact, He “couldn’t” heal everybody.

This may sound strange to you, but study the Bible for yourself; you’ll find something amazing when you read the latter part of Mark 5, into the first five verses of Mark 6. Jesus had raised a young woman from the dead. (Mark 5:39-43). Right after that, He came into his home country and the Bible says He could there do no mighty work, except that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. Mark 6:5-6 tells us that as a result, He marveled at their unbelief, and then went around about the villages, teaching.

He tried to heal the people and He couldn’t. This wasn’t a function of His inability, for He is Himself God and can do all things, but their unbelief short-circuited His power . . . . .

@Joagbaje

Seriously for a minute, I am interested in your view concerning the case of this pastor and the 12 year old girl (assuming the story is true).

Do you think other Christians are entitled to criticise the pastor?

Can we say this pastor is definitely called by God to that office?

Can we say this pastor is anointed by god for that office?

Joagbaje

In the past, you told us that people should not speak bad about "ministers" --- even when in disagreement with them e.g. people should not abuse Oyakhilome because he is a "minister" and "ministers" have a special place and bla bla bla.

But here you are denigrating a minister on this thread ---- because his message contradicts yours.

In the past, when people pointed out that Oyakhilome and Chris Embassy do not allow books and materials of other Christian writers in their "churches" and bookshops, this same Joagbaje told us that why should Chris Embassy allow its members to be contaminated by these other Christian writers.

This is of course based on a second nonsensical and hypocritical attitude that Oyakhilome and Chris Embassy have greater truths while other Christians only have lesser truths.

Even in that Nigeria, which other "pastor" does Oyakhilome associate with --- other than T B Joshua?

Finally, why would any biblically informed or knowledgeable Christian want to associate with Chris Embassy: the boss Oyakhilome preaches a shed load of heresy and error (let's even assume for once that he is not a charlatan); members of the "church" go about stealing money all over the place and give the money to the "church", yet Oyakhilome is not ashamed to say the church has no duty to refund the money. Come on --- even non-Christians of integrity know better than that.

So yes, I saw the message when it was first posted here; I just kept quiet about it until now that comments were asked for.

LagosShia:
the explanation you presented from Joagbaje can be summarized in one sentence:

"FILTHY ONIONS IN CLEAN BASKETS"!!!!

QUESTION:how and why does God allow filthy men to occupy the office of his beloved "son" Jesus,who was sinless? on what basis do they claim superiority when they are filthy men camouflagging in "clean baskets"?

These men do not "occupy" the office of Jesus; these are often self-appointed "pastors" or "pastors" ordained as such by other charlatans or by unwise deceived "genuine" "pastors". It is foolish in the extreme to say/believe that once a person occupies the "office" of pastor (in reality calls himself "pastor" or is called by other misguided people "pastor", he is "anointed" or he is "called of God".


Jesus Christ Himself said several times that there will be fake people making these kinds of claim!

Matthew 7:15

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves

Matthew 24:5

For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many

Matthew 24:11

and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

and critically Matthew 7:22-23

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

So everyone has to be watchful whether any "pastor" is a real pastor ----- or an imposter!

I once gave the following link to quite simple enough material. http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/Bible05.html

Everyone criticising this pastor should be careful not to bring curses and damnation on their own heads!

How can you be criticising a whole man of God; a whole pastor? Don't you know that Joagbaje has explained the importance of functioning in the office of pastor?

Joagbaje:
The word anointed has multiple use. It referes to an office ,it also refers to an empowerment .

If a man functions in an office . He is Gods  anointed by the virtue of that office. If a man receives ability ,empowerment ,a grace , it is also call an anointing. Jesus was the anointed (chosen one) that's an office . Even when he hadn't received an empowerment , he was the elect, anointed, but this anointing meant to be the chosen one. Later in life at the age of 30, he received an empowerment when he received the holyghost , the anointing came on him. So if someone functions in an office as a pastor for example , he is Gods anointed, this is by the virtue of the office he occupies.

I'm sure my answer above clears the second question.

It's about the office,not about the person .those who function in leadership are anointed by the virtue of that office.

PA1982:
Bible not corrupt, Obalende?
Tell me.
How does the Gospel according to Mark end?
At what verse?

Passion is one thing, twisting the truth is another, MyJoe.
That OP video was a showcase of hypocrisy and I wasn't going to let its falsehoods go unchallenged.

As for the posters who have actually tackled the reality of NT inconsistencies, I for one applaud your efforts and honesty.
They made for excellent reading and reflection.

I think you would really need to clarify what you mean by "corrupt" or "corrupted". For example do, say, scribal errors, omissions or additions amount to "corruption"?

Then you would also need to address the fact that the Bible as it is today, even without the autographs, is well corroborated by many many many manuscripts; also, don't forget that modern Bibles use footnotes to give indications of differences in manuscript e.g. that some texts vary depending on different manuscripts, or that some manuscripts have texts not found in other manuscripts etc etc. Is this what you mean by "corruption"?


General comment: on a forum like this it is common to see sweeping statements, unlike nuanced statements that you would find in academic or scholarly contexts; this is something the reader here really needs to bear in mind and to note that certain statements need to be investigated further or be treated with suspicion.

[quote author=Indirah? link=topic=751616.msg9083852#msg9083852 date=1315231483]So there we go, i have brought for you the most likely escape of an explanation u could have. Does it make sense to anybody.

Anyway the point is that is simply shows that biblical records cannot be perfect. However in truth these discrepancies are meaningless. How important are his last words really? It is neither here nor there whether he farted last or vomitted last. Is it?

So i would have expected u to argue from the point that these are trivialities and that the bible is harmonious on the core matters of doctreine.[/quote]I like this --- and, in addition, the fact that two or more accounts are not identical does not amount necessarily to inconsistency.

^^^* It is a disgrace; basically the "pastors" of this ilk want to control the lives of their victims and in the process elevating themselves as having some unique powers and authority. The long and short of it is that these type of "pastors" are basically like "babalawos", native oraclists, occultists etc.

Of course counseling can be helpful; it does not even have to be counseling from "pastors"; you could get good counseling even from good family elders ---- far far more experienced and far far more insightful than a lot of vagabonds calling themselves "pastors". Even the Bible sees "pastors" as elders anyway and the Bible does not in fact necessarily eliminate the use of normal social/family structures for these issues. Above all, the Bible does not give the kind of powers being grabbed here for "pastors"; only some vagabond "pastors" do that.


* Sometimes it is necessary to say some rude things and maybe there are some people tasked with doing it; so there, I've said some rude things now.

I would have thought that the video in the opening post would have been confirmation to anyone still doubting that this Oyakhilome fellow is a real charlatan. Does any sensible or right thinking or biblically informed person think the charade we see in that opening post is anything to do with genuine Christianity?

Unbelievable!

Reminder

Again -- please remember that voting can be done entirely anonymously and without giving any reason for the voter's choice; also, this poll is not about winning/losing but an exercise in the belief that when confronted with important choices/options, people tend to think carefully.

Nna, I very sorry at all at all. Na when I see you and Kunle post, I come remember that one! E be like say I don dey sme sme and negligent dis days; una go jus manage de poll like so oh!

vedaxcool:
what is going on here, rational discourse using Atheist standard system of engagement.

What do you expect? The next level after this infantile level is the childish-sophistry level of "define god" etc; after that the next level is to recycle, parrot and regurgitate old arguments some of which are obsolete; after that the next level is to resort to intellectually dishonest methods. Mercifully, there are people capable of debunking their intellectually dishonest arguments and exposing them for the bluffers that they are as David has done on issues of science and as others have done elsewhere.

Interestingly, this comment below made elsewhere applies quite suitably to our evangelical atheist friends, hence no serious reply to the infantile comments.

lagerwhenindoubt:
. . . . It is like a man discussing with a petulant child who makes faces and sticks his tongue out rather than a answer your question. You are sooner the buffoon the more you attempt to come down to his impish level to have him see reason. He did not intend to make sense in the first place.

Bump.

It would be nice to see more voting on this poll.

globexl:
@davidylan and sexkills: So you believe in god as the creator and heaven and earth and you have a personal relationship with god? . As far as I am concerned, that is great for you. That would never stop me from loving you as my neighbor.  You should be basking in the esctasy and uphoria of your faith. T[b]he strenght of your faith and closeness to god should make you a shinning light among others.
However , the fact the two of you spend a lot time to fight and defend the vearcity of your faith, says a lot about you and a lot about the very faith that you defend so much. It clearly shows that YOU, yes YOU, have some subconscious doubts about your faith and beliefs, otherwise you would not need to come out shooting cannonballs each time some nobodies like us criticize your beliefs.[/b] . . . . .

Hmmm, pot --- kettle ---- black

Mirror --- point ---- at ---- self

e.g. mirror below (from an old post)

Enigma:
De thing na waaa o jare 

The 'evangelical' atheists here (some of them even aggressive if not militant) are obviously proselytising: seeking to prove that their own 'faith' {in godlessness or in lack of god, if they prefer} is right or trying to 'debunk' Christianity and other religions; basically they are trying to prove that their own belief or faith or religion  (sarcasm alert!) is better than anyone else's. Now that's interesting, isnt't it? I would say it shows at least two forms of insecurity: (a) they do not know that their own belief, faith or religion    (sarcasm alert) is right and thus need the reassurance from attacking 'weaknesses' in others; (b) they are ashamed to admit that they are indeed basically doing that which they accuse others of ---- practising a 'religion'  (sarcasm only partly alert!!!). What with all the contention, criticising, proselytising etc?

There are (let's say "passive" atheists who just exist day to day; do not even think about God let alone to consider or ponder his existence, yet let alone to consider discussing his existence with others, yet let alone to try to persuade others of his non-existence. These atheists just live, they just exist. God is not even in the picture at all for them.

Compare those with our evangelical (aggressive if not militant) atheist friends who are indeed obssessed with this same God that they claim do not exist. Of all the threads and discussion on the forum they encamp in the religion section!

globexl:
If you are actualy strong in your faith, why would you need to defend it at all? It does not make sense to me. Your faith is yours. It's in your mind, its how you feel, it's subjective and it is safe to dwell within you. That should be sufficient for you. . . . .

The simple answer is that although it is often better to just ignore someone who doesn't know what s/he is talking about, sometimes it is necessary to expose the ignorance (or worse!) of such a person.

@ Jesoul

Re #3: you'd be surprised what you find in the Bible sometimes 

Not on all fours but I'd say some "principles" can be deduced from the below and accompanying/related material.

Exodus 21

10If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11I[b]f he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free[/b], without any payment of money.

Push for atheist chaplains in US military, see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

In the military, there are more than 3,000 chaplains who minister to the spiritual and emotional needs of active duty troops, regardless of their faiths. The vast majority are Christians, a few are Jews or Muslims, one is a Buddhist. A Hindu, possibly even a Wiccan may join their ranks soon.

But an atheist?

Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military.

Joining the chaplain corps is part of a broader campaign by atheists to win official acceptance in the military. Such recognition would make it easier for them to raise money and meet on military bases. It would help ensure that chaplains, religious or atheist, would distribute their literature, advertise their events and advocate for them with commanders.

But winning the appointment of an atheist chaplain will require support from senior chaplains, a tall order. Many chaplains are skeptical: Do atheists belong to a “faith group,” a requirement for a chaplain candidate? Can they provide support to religious troops of all faiths, a fundamental responsibility for chaplains?

Jason Torpy, a former Army captain who is president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, said humanist chaplains would do everything religious chaplains do, including counsel troops and help them follow their faiths. But just as a Protestant chaplain would not preside over a Catholic service, a humanist might not lead a religious ceremony, though he might help organize it.

“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”. . . . . . . .

Some sections of evangelical atheism, usually the subtler forms (??)*, even now have "chaplaincies".   

e.g. http://harvardhumanist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=46



* Edited as I'm not even too sure how 'subtle' is 'subtle'!

Evangelical atheism the religion in evangelising action.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7813812.stm

Representative sample of evangelical atheism beliefs or creed

From http://evangelicalatheism.org/

"Evangelical atheism": Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news." I believe that strong atheism, the belief that there is no god, is not only true but is also good news. I also believe that the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. Unless you already are one, I believe you would be happier and the world would be a better place if you were an atheist.

There are already a number of resources on atheism: books, web sites, movies, you name it. Most of them patiently deal with the rational. This is as it should be; atheism is the only rational response to the question of whether there is a god. What I want to focus on, though, is the emotional. I believe that emotion, not reason, is the moat between the fantasy of religion and the reality (Edit: really?) of atheism.

Life is hard, and religionists take comfort in "knowing" that it's all according to God's purpose. But, if true, would it really be comforting? That a benevolent, loving god could think of no better way to do what he needs to do by causing so much suffering along with joy?

Life ends in death, but wouldn't eternal life be worse?

Many people go to religious services to reinforce their love of God, but isn't that palpable feeling really the love of each other?

We all are lonely, but aren't six billion of us, most of whom are really fine people, enough?

No problem bros; for me, that was settled once you cleared the air.

davidylan:
So obviously your point isnt really to debate logically but merely to "hammer god believers". Such a disgrace. Little wonder every question directed at you is greeted with the "hey thats irrelevant" BS.

Why do you think they are called evangelical atheists?